fablefandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:The Moral View
Is the weapon gained here random? I know it is based on your 'Moral Standing'. As 'good' hero I received 'The Equaliser'. DLanyon 08:48, February 6, 2011 (UTC) :Yet as a 'good' hero I gained Skorm's justice on one playthrough and The Ice Maiden on another, both were fully good. Its just random no link to moral standing or anything--Alpha Lycos 10:39, February 6, 2011 (UTC) ::I thought it was supposed to be related to morality, but then again one of the places I read that was in the strategy guide. Maybe we should just take that bit out. --Enodoc(Talk) (User Space) 23:02, February 6, 2011 (UTC) :::Yes, the game can be all too random. It's rather pointless to enter a celestial Moral View and end up receiving an evil weapon. Even worse than having black kids from a white spouse; at least they got infancy right - they're white as babies... wait. ಠ_ಠ :::Ahhh, Lionhead... then you say the game is underrated. Céu 16:41, June 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::I received the Equaliser now, several times, each time my idealistic intensity becoming more systematic in being "good", even jotting down on notepads my development unfolding the most intensive, methodical committment to pursuing the agapic-kenotic i.e. "good-pure-moral" path - yet there are other weapons either not immoral or neutral of equal, positively better capacity, so I wonder why the Equaliser is favored by the coding above all others...? The Demon Door said I was literally an angel, transcendently luminous ineffably - it said it was speechless before me (any others receive this dialogue, out of curiosity? I am not egotistic, just curious if my efforts were meaningful)...but then...the Equaliser...? Any weapon is good with good gamesmanship, still. Capricious developers. At least instead of the Bacchanalian variety usually misgiven to my person (what decent person would have an orgy with 10 people and kill innocent nobles simply for being noble? etc. - nihilistic modernity degrades us all) I have received recently, I obtained Scythe's Warhammer in the latest venture, o well. Also: in the Moral View landscape, there are angels, apparantly doves and similar creatures in the sky and "REX BELLATOR PACIFICUS" or something is in the garden, displaying me in statuesque form, the Latinate boldened - is this also very easy to achieve? :::::There's only five possible weapons per alignment in that door, so you'd need to go there quite a few times to see all the different options. I'm not sure if there's a lower chance at certain weapons or not. --Enodoc(Talk) (User Space) 18:48, August 22, 2017 (UTC) :::::I have come to terms with the nature and limits of "purist" weaponry in this game - and in light of what is available, I should rather have accepted the humble Equaliser as the adequately excellent anti-Daemoniac rifle it is - the creative nuclei, artistic and productionist, who developed the game, possessed a certain substratum of belief-sets, over-determining the selection, variety and differential quality of the weapons in the game, all massively biased according to "anarcho-libertarian" ideology. :::::I have analyzed your own analysis of the weapons etc. on here, "Enodoc", and I must congratulate you on your uncommon keenness of perception and rigorous empirical intelligence. :::::I can also corroborate your astute observations relating to the Ossuary G. Door. Basically, the two best locations statistically, are the Auroran Demon Door and the Ossuary - the rest is truly randomized, generally. :::::In all honesty, the "purist" alignment questors, what should our strategic-tactical decisions be as regards the sparse war-chest available to "hardliners" of the alignment? :::::I mean, this is tragicomic, pitiful - I am in Shifting Sands fighting off Sentinels with Holy Vengeance, Defender of the Faith, AGAIN. AGAIN. To add insult to injury, my latest Mourningwood chest-prize was the splendidly noble "Soul-drinker", the Sunset House G. Door threw me "Sorrow's Fist", and then unpuzzling the puzzle, I received, "The Ice Maiden" - FURIOUS! So, purchased the Fort and got 2400 in M&M, and what does the game do...? The TEE KILLER SHOOTER. GOSH DARN! So in Millfields, guess what? THE REAVER INDUSTRIES PERFORATOR! MADNESS. A common shop item, but vile and villainous like the others - INSANE. The most subhuman, amoralist, nihilist, libertine, antinomian and Satanist vomit, next to EVERY TIME; every augmentation requiring murder of loved ones, the defilement of the idea of innocence, or collectivistic ape-like or bonobo-like sexual orgies involving at least 50 persons - SHOOT ME NOW. :::::In your leisure time, if you will, employ your intelligence in some sort of analytic charting and ranking of "Good" weapons vs. "Evil" weapons in the game, lay out the bias so weird; and perhaps the possibilities existent for those who refuse to acquiesce glibly to Nihilistic necrophiliac world-view, in every sphere of life, for all life is holarchic. :::::Here I go again in the sands of doom, gee, the Wolfsbane guarding me awesomely, and Defender of the Faith, against, let me count, oh, five or so Sentinels, in The Veiled Path... My Hero Level is maxed out, so the spawn-families are ridiculous. I HAVE NO CHOICE but to carry massive stockpiles of potions. Without 10-30 potions for every serious sequence of combat or segment of pitched battle, I would have been knocked out beyond counting. I achieved not being knocked out solely due to careful planning of sleeping for two days in pubs, stocking up on potions, sleeping again to make sure the shops had vendibles ready, ad infinitum, ad nauseaum: not quite heroic - what choice did the developers give, however...? :::::New note: the whole officially-propagandized randomized weapon theme and the total frustration of poor luck I have encountered, sparked into action the obsessive part of my personality and I have been re-playing the game angelically, ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. From this experience, Endoc is permitted by scientific reality (pragmatically, I leave in his judgment) in adding to the "starred" special good weapons the following, as I have received these weapons in the location under discussion while playing equally angelic each time, although some were one-time occurences only - in other words, the developers implicitly class and classed these weapons as of "the Light" or the "right-hand path": the Good Hero can receive Simmons's Shotgun, Beadle's Cutlass, the Hammer of Wilmageddon, Tannar's Glory, Briar's Blaster (once) and the TYPO in the Moral View in addition. I learned this through strenuously creating, re-creating, then when necessary, manually removing repeatedly, and re-creating anew again another purely Good Hero profile; the 360 version I play on Xbox One S only permits 5 save spaces. Deleting for the sake of enlightenment from the Xbox storage memory unit an ungodly amount of Good heros, awesome playthroughs, whose number I blush to state (I concede I am a loser, indeed). Examining these weaponry, their nature and augment preconditions, their appearance here is not unintelligible. None of these weapons contain anything meta-ethically nihilistic or anomic, so this makes complete sense; even if not as supposedly high-grade as the usual stock of Avo. or the weird Equaliser etc. encountered here for "goody-goody" Heros; each one is normative in terms of moral objectivity. I thought I might mention this, but I shall leave it up to Endoc whether to add them in the article with an asterisk or not. :::::It does appear from my loser-like wealth of experience, excepting the Ossuary and the Moral View, the claim of randomness can stand tenably. Yet, the devs. and commercial pushers claimed UNCONDITIONAL, ABSOLUTE randomness in every context: Endoc and others have shown the reality. :::::Also, half-relatedly: Hero Weapon morphs appear randomized in a more restricted sense; I would describe the whole mess with the adjective "arbitrary"; the personal weapon morph system they created is great at first sight, but is sadly, legitimately arbitrary: e.g., one time I practically achieved sainthood in the eyes of all rapidly, all villagers loved me, but as an accident in the "Chicken Chaser" quest, in trying to pick up the nearby Silver Key, I kicked ONE chicken, ONCE, which, then, mysteriously fell over, dead. Despite donating 10,000 of gold to children beggars, etc. what does the morph actualize after I defeat Lt. Simmons later on...? "CRUELTY TO CHICKENS", my sword and other weapons serrated and otherwise grown evilly, despite the game's own statistics (under "Miscellaneous") correctly reporting I kicked ONE SINGLE chicken ONCE. I am interested in the exact source of the stated weapon morph requirements listed on this article - they certainly have more than a grain of reality, but where are these data coming from...? Simply informally testing and guessing...? I lost the old strategy guide, so apologies if that is where they are coming from... :::::I have achieved the "angelic" formation on my Hammer and Sword for reasons not listed on this article at all - some refining to do here... I did manage to morph my Hammer purposely into looking almost exactly like Scythe's Warhammer once, but the chaotic unknown rules make these feats rare... :::::The whole nature of the weapon morph system needs to be re-conceptualized by the fan-base and interested parties must re-analyze everything if the factors of causality are wanted to be understood. Having a dazzling million variability to weapon morphing possibilities, if the game is arbitrary in configuring at the root level and assigning the vast idio-variation, can only have so much aesthetic and experiential significance... :::::Yes, I am Barnaby Beadle, BTW - currently medically incapacitated (broken bones mending insufficiently timely), no normal person should involve themselves in a video game like this. Re-emphasizing Range and Identity of Possible Good-Alignment Weapons I have no forensic training, no photographic skills esp. in relation to the new-fangled Xbox Live system and the Web, but I can ABSOLUTELY and DECLARATIVELY, IMPERATIVELY state the following as pure veracity and Endoc or G. Dam. or one of you "elders" here should, to be responsibly scholastic, ha, add what is stated above, asterisk-marked or not in some way or another: The good Hero can verifiably, scientifically, receive, admittedly, less typically but "chaotically stably", in the Moral View, in addition to what the article rightly lists, the following: Simmons's Shotgun, Beadle's Cutlass, the Hammer of Wilmageddon, Tannar's Glory, Briar's Blaster and the TYPO. As such, these weapons are to be understood as "Good" weapons (already self-evident from their augment requirements) "officially" - who else but the developers who made the coding and programming designing all these things is going to provide more "official" identification here...? My evidence here is anecdotal because I have no tech-savvy skills, but I pinky-promise what I state is the truthfulest truth. :Hmm, interesting. That doesn't match the "good pool" of weapons that we once found on the old Lionhead Forums, but I'm sure you're right. Does that mean the rest of the Uncommon weapons are Evil, and could turn up in the "evil pool" in the same way? --Enodoc(Talk) (User Space) 16:02, February 10, 2018 (UTC) We all know corporativism-enmeshed direct company employees of ex-Lionhead/WHATEVER might not have been as saintly as humanly imaginable in translasting to their beloved masses so lucrative, the actual data and information underpinning and forming the substructure of their "product"; commercially-minded trumpters and professional "presenters" are not the most rigorous scientists... Not unique to this deceased or quasi-deceased corporal group. Or Microsoft. Fallen human nature, mysteirum iniquitatis; concupiscence, samsara Buddhistically. (I NEED ADDERALL BUT REFUSE ON MORAL GROUNDS.) The Good Pool is based on reality, really. A higher-ranking weapon in conformity to the objectivity of the moral order of the universe is, a priori, "Good" either substantiating or super-adding to the commentary of corporate professional molders of the consumer-base lens of perception. The appearance in the unilaterally MORALLY-DEFINED location of such weapons is quite intelligible and predictable. As you documented, within the higher strata of Fable 3 weaponry, nothing is random and although chaotic, some one had a brain at Lionhead and some math is involved to things - for me, all this is secondary - the Thunderblade, for example, I believe, can embody either Uncommon or Rare category. Basically, the only real hard distinction is SHOP-GRADE and then ALL OTHER BETTER, "ELITE" WEAPONS as relating to location. I am conceptualizing in their terms, not my own: the Facemelter morally correctly upgraded (i.e., neutralize evil weapons by selectively augmenting only morally-normative requirements) is shop-grade but blows next to every other weapon away in its power. Before I did (HA) empirically, positivistically encounter in my MANY INSANE play-throughs these weapons in the Moral View, I already anticipated and intuited their eventual manifestation; for, as above-mentioned, none of their characteristic augmentations stamping the specific type defining each weapon in Fable 3, existed in contradiction of the "noumenal Kingdom of Ends" (one cannot love Immanuel Kant sufficiently), meta-ethically. Each weapon is case-by-case, and ONE iota of authentic but shrouded malefic essence in the augment-requisites, or even possibly the description, rules out the vast numerical preponderating war-chest in Fable 3 from partaking of "Goodness" in any sense. Sure, a "video game" - life is deeper than that, all is interwoven holarchically, holistically: glib, "entertaining" evil, so modernly-beloved, is the sign of our noetic resignation to semi-apedom and barbaric nihilism. AHEM. MOVING ON. To address your thoughts or question directly: YES. I say, not literally measuring, but, seemingly, approx. 95 percent of the weapons are gratuitously redolent of the most noisome baleful subhumanity and EVIL. No rhetorical nonsense here - most weapons, of any category in Fable 3, are indeed emphatically "evil" if one is not a Sadean Nietzschean Satanist, whether LaVeryian or otherwise. No argumentation. Detestably, and to the demeritorious discredit of the creators. Fable is a sign of the schizotypy of the modern materialized, soul-robbed psyche. Our Hero who "pluralistically" might opt to "Evilly" attain a "Good" end in circumventing their homeland from genocidal extirpation - only our own fallen moral schizophenia is documented. A video game, sure, but little things are the most meaningfully revelatory, in the end, and significant. TO THE SECOND DIRECTLY VERIFICATION-PRINCIPLE BASED QUESTION: I, Sir, have no darn clue. I have NEVER once even had the hardness of heart to contemplate the precondition for the Tenderiser hammer. Hippies are foul decadent creeplings, but answering decadency with even wilder decadency - the tempter Leslie, as soon as he rattled on about no one knowing how to be evil anymore (WHAT?) and proving evil by murdering an innocent civilian, I became evil for his sake and only could repeatedly target his cranium, to no effect, with my artillery. Poseur Leslie does not even know the beginning of evil, ha... The game honestly should have let those of us of the right-hand path to eradicate him as a counter-refutation of paradoxical irony - evil is its own reward. Examine the augmentation requirments and narrative description of the Uncommon-type weapons not mentioned by my self: what is the common uniting factor? Each one has at least one aspect transgressive of moral normativity. So, the devs. and co. were schizoid-minded themselves probably but basically, it seems, the Uncommon weapons not manifesting in The Moral View for a Good Hero, are indeed Evil, cautiously affirmed and with exceptions to a degree one must state - to what degree the coding corresponds here, I know not - E.g. Arkwright's Flintlock - a solid, nice rifle ruined by its necessitation of mass murdering Albion citizens contingently of noble background. For God's sake, there are no aristocrats who even bear weapons or exist in anything like a soldier capacity in Fable 3! Simple psychopathic murder, AGAIN. Slaughtering civilians is EVIL. One wonders if a deviated Anarcho-Communistic worldview does lurk here in all these weapons celebrating class-based murder prejudiced so one-sidedly against "nobles"...? Anyway - logically, the answer to your second-part question is basically, in terms of generalities and how the common mind thinks, YES; yet my bottom-most consideration adds more complexity here - still, populist-fashion, YES. Those Uncommon weapons not appearing in The Moral View in Fable 3 are indeed, upon examination, decidedly Evil weapons, at best, darkly ambiguous; but whether or not they appear in a related pool and similar contingent info, I cannot comment at all even remotely; whether the game-programming seamlessly harmonizes, I know not. At the deeper level, what we are hitting upon is true. Examine each of these Uncommon weapons not manifesting in the Auroran Demon Door for the Good Hero, and the rationale in its exclusion shall be owing to its moral heterodoxy: the Ice Maiden (glaringly obvious) is evil, Arkwright's Flintlock is evil (civilian murder), Really Sharp Pair of Scissors ("EVIL expressons" - slightly less hardcore evil here if meaningful?), Sorrow's Fist (obvious), Souldrinker (obvious), and the Tee Killer Shooter (sex-deviance). All clear-cut evil. (There are ambiguous ones, extending beyond what might appear in this or that pool, such as as the Gnomewrecker and the Chickenbane and others, that however are the exception precisely in their ambiguity. A DLC example would be the Marksman 500 - invented by slimeball Reaver Industries, but nothing antinomian in its augmentations - these facts do make a "NEUTRAL-AMBIGUOUS" categoreal space reasonable When in doubt, I go for less confirmatory evidence of a weapon's nature in its internal game morph-scheme and "aural" status; even colorings etc. might matter. I suppose just as certain weapons like the Gnomewrecker are "one of a kind", a very small set of such-like quasi-neutral or inscrutably ambiguous ones might be cognizable.) :Right, so, to summarise: yes, the others are probably evil, but without evidence we don't actually know whether they appear in the "evil pool" for the Moral View or the Auroran Mine. I guess that leaves it for someone else to verify. --Enodoc(Talk) (User Space) 13:06, February 17, 2018 (UTC) *I can't finish reading this whole diatribe, but I have to wonder if this contributor has swallowed Barnum's Thesaurus? 17:58, February 19, 2018 (UTC) I promised Endoc and Sir Gamrau I would cease being idiosyncratic and eccentric with my verbal pulsatile zany facade. In any case, only modern Americanized Westerners would not be able to immediately understand my diction purposely over-the-top - I have not read any thesauri in my life. Not immediately understanding my words and my expired rationale for expressing my self in such a manner are separate issues. Americanized Westerners of Nietzschean "Last Man" herdling blood, I impenitently refuse passive apologetic spiritlessness; but to others of sound intellect and good will (such as the two main editors cited), I again apologize for my apparently alienating way of communicating; I am trying to be a "normativist" contributor now so, those of antipathetic vitriol, enraged against me for the most trivial of reasons in life, please do not throw out negativity or your own projected nescience into my visage like a caitiff. Thank you. *Yes, that seals it... This contributor HAS swallowed Barnum's Thesaurus. Garry Damrau(talk) 14:58, March 26, 2018 (UTC) I shall cease activity here. Intention was always wholesome, honestly. However, I am wearied of petty human ego-born nonsense. I am not autistic and know how to behave and communicate normally. You yourself said, "Let our egos not interfere" - but having a personality and being quirky, and, indeed, well-read, seems to only generate negativity and ill humor and misunderstanding, mockery, snide condescension and mendacious attempts to "delegitimize" my personage. I never ruined your editorial regnum, kinglings, all I did was act slightly quirkily and eccentrically and subconsciously employed diction and verbiage noetic ignorance can only react to by projective insults ("he memorized, swallowed a thesaurus, etc.") - I have fangs and claws too, but refuse to bare them as befitting gentlemanly estate. I never claimed to make groundbreaking research here but my activity was always objective. You and Endoc are comparatively very charitably-disposed, noble even, alongside the rabblement of Wikipedian editorial megalomaniacs, but I can sense this is not going to work out, whatever data I might have or not - I fit no where in modernity. Eternal utlagatus. Farewell.